* * *
One of the most popular debates on this blog is the Calvinism vs Arminianism debate that spontaneously shows up in threads. I have set up this blog post so the Calvinism/Arminian discussion can continue here, but not “overtake” other important articles. Part 1 had so many comments, over 1,000, the page was taking a long time to load, hence, Part 2.
I’ll use Ed’s post to start it off. Feel free to join in:
Hannah,
I hope you came over here:
You had said:
Hmmmm….well if there is no one there to preach the Word says they are without excuse… Romans 1 says he will reveal Himself to them…My response:
Romans 10:13-15King James Version (KJV)
13 For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.
14 How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?
15 And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things!
Ed
Spiritual Sounding Board 
Lydia, if you are seeing this,
I share your frustration in being asked not to address a topic, Calvinism, I believe to be absolutely germane to the issue of spiritual abuse, and abuse generally. Still, of course, I must honor Julie Anne’s request that we bring the discussion here. I suggest that there are many issues that are not specific to Calvinism, such as the imposition of ecclesiastical power structures and the way these power structures get translated into interpersonal relationships. We’ll see if I can manage to address such issues in a way that is not off putting on doctrinal grounds. I guess it’s a matter of being able to discern what battles ought to be (and can be) fought where.
Julie Anne,
Don’t be shy about telling me if I should overstep your boundaries.
LikeLike
Gary – Last night, I was surprised to see that the wife-spanking article was being spread on Twitter by very strong Calvinists. That was amazing to me. How did we learn about abuse? Was it someone forcing us? We cannot force our doctrinal beliefs on anyone. It just won’t work. They have to want to find the answers.
Oh . . and I’m not shy 🙂 haha
LikeLike
JA,
In what sense were the strong Calvinists taking up the wife-spanking article? Were they actually taking up the cause in opposition to such practices? Or were they only defending themselves from the notion that there might be some connection between wife-spanking and their deterministic, authoritarian doctrine?
LikeLike
I saw one person say something to the effect that she was appalled that these kinds of abuses were coming from her camp and was spreading the link around so that it would bring awareness in order to stop the abuse.
LikeLike
Very positive. And encouraging.
LikeLike
Any time you mention Calvinism in association with anything that appears to be negative about it, you will find that defenders of Calvinism show up to argue that they are right, you are wrong, and, frequently, if you don’t believe in the TULIP, you do not believe the Bible and cannot be a Christian. Happens rather often. It is like they have a search and notify system to alert the troops.
LikeLike
Yes, I was very encouraged and yet also squeamish knowing the people who would follow the link would see Calvin bashing. That’s why I think we must be specific about the abuses instead of focusing solely on doctrine (which will most likely push them away). People will put it together when they want to, are ready to, are listening to the Holy Spirit. But they can and will connect with specific abuse issues and that’s a first baby step.
LikeLike
An Attorney,
You are absolute right. My thought is that their doctrine is their de facto god. They have put their faith in right thinking rather than in the Person of Jesus. They do not recognize it, and would not admit it, but they have erected an idol that must be defended.
LikeLike
“share your frustration in being asked not to address a topic, Calvinism, I believe to be absolutely germane to the issue of spiritual abuse, and abuse generally.”
Gary, It would probably not bother me as much except it is this way on many spiritual abuse blogs. And since I live at ground zero I know the tactic is that Calvinists are “offended” because they are nice people. And they are! They have not made the connection with their doctrinal beliefs. They think they are honoring God with their view of total depravity and Sovereignty when they are actually blaspheming Him. They want to separate the belief from the behavior of those in power. . How does one separate beliefs from behavior?
All determinism is evil. Whether it is Islam or the softer variation of Calvinism. Communism is determinism. As is socialism. And it is always for your own good. Someone else knows what is for your own good because you cannot know.
The only thing determinism does is to provide a cover for evil and try to make it look good or holy.
I have been doing this long enough to know quite a few people who were rabid Calvinists arguing it to the death that are now rabid atheists. Once you accept the determinist god there is no where else to go but atheism once you cannot stand that god anymore.
LikeLike
Mod note: I moved this comment:
LikeLike
Another comment moved:
LikeLike
I have even been told not to quote or cite from Calvin’s Institutes, as that is dated material!
LikeLike
Mod note: here’s another moved comment:
LikeLike
Kevin said
(to another commentator on the “spanking” thread),
I have to agree with Lydia.
Calvinists put too much emphasis on Calvin and not enough on Jesus. Some even equate Calvinism to the Gospel itself.
LikeLike
whew, thanks, Daisy 🙂 haha!
LikeLike
An Attorney said,
I am not surprised.
Most Calvinists will not cite any material they consider to be authoritative about Calvinist, pro or con. You cannot usually nail them down to provide you with material THEY think is sufficient and trustworthy.
For the ones who do cite ‘Author X’ with approval, a different Calvinist three months later will scoff at Author X and say that Mr. X is a ninny who it not qualified to clip anyone’s toe nails, never mind comment on Calvinism.
So it does not matter if a Cal recommends X to you this week on one blog, because another one will come along and say X is a clown on another blog 5 months from now.
Calvinists have set Calvinist up to be non-falsifiable, no matter what you do, no matter who you quote at them. Nothing and nobody ever meets their approval, if it disagrees with Calvinism.
LikeLike
@ Julie Anne. You are welcome. I did not mean to derail the spank thread.
LikeLike
I have once asked someone close to me – – “where is Jesus in all of this Calvin stuff?” It’s mind boggling that they cannot see that they elevate a man and his ideas even more than the Bible. My very close friend who is Calvinist does not do this. She exudes the love of Christ.
LikeLike
No problem, Daisy. I knew you’d eventually catch up on that long comment thread 🙂
LikeLike
“My very close friend who is Calvinist does not do this. She exudes the love of Christ. ”
I have some of those too. But to be honest, they do not go deep with the doctrine and its logical conclusions and do not keep up with what is going on in the movement. But they are precious.
LikeLike
And good for them. Hopefully they are getting the truth from God’s Word and the Holy Spirit and the label is just that – a label. That’s why I hate labels. They do not represent everyone who claims the label.
LikeLike
missdaisyflower wrote:
“Calvinists put too much emphasis on Calvin and not enough on Jesus. Some even equate Calvinism to the Gospel itself.”
This is what I mean. You guys have absolutely no idea of Calvinism. It’s amazing to see. This is why it’s virtually impossible to have a conversation.
Spurgeon, who is probably the greatest Preacher of all, pointed more people to Christ than any mortal on earth. If you would take the time to listen to his sermon, just google it, when he said Calvinism is the Gospel, he was saying that the doctrines that incorporate Calvinism are all biblical and brought out of the Scriptures.
Also, Calvin never even knew of TULIP…it came a long time after his death in defense of the Remonstrants who were trying to change doctrine.
I am a Calvinist and know a ton of other Calvinist and we all long to serve Jesus and live for him. We hardly even talk about Calvin. We talk about Christ and how he can help us lead a pure and holy life.
LikeLike
lydiasellerofpurple said (original post)
One of my problems with Calvinism is that it is so intellectually hoity toity.
Jesus Christ said that entering the kingdom of God was to be done as a little child. Your trust in Jesus gets you in the door, not intellectual understanding or education or believing in or understanding systemic theology.
Unless a kid is a pint-sized Einstein, how is he or she going to understand systematic theology as confusing as Calvinism is?
I’m a college educated adult, was a nerdy intellectual, book reading, book loving person as a kid and teen, I made straight A’s in school, and I find a lot of Calvinism confusing.
Even after having read up on Calvinism in my adult years, Calvinists today tell me I don’t “really understand it.”
I don’t think Jesus ever taught one has to be fluent in koine Greek, ancient Hebrew, and have multiple phD’s to enter the kingdom and receive salvation.
What about Americans who went overseas to other nations in years past, and still do today, to spread the Gospel? Was it not sufficient for them to “preach Christ and Him crucified (and raised),” or would Calvinists say no, it was also necessary to teach them about TULIP also?
If a nerdy, college educated American gal such as myself, who was deeply into Christian apologetics for about 15 (or more) years, finds Calvinism confusing, how do Calvinists expect your un-educated, Average Joes in America, who aren’t particularly into reading and learning, to grasp it, or non-English speaking, uneducated pagans in other nations to understand it?
If someone hears about Jesus (the Gospel) but not about Calvinism/ TULIP, is your Calvinist going to say that that person is not really saved? They seem to imply that in their views on the internet.
LikeLike
Kevin,
Since you’re so much smarter than the rest of us, why don’t you tell us if you agree with concept that God predestines some from birth to suffer eternal conscious torment?
Plus, I’m sorry. You need to quit looking to mere men. Spurgeon was absolutely not the greatest preacher of all. Jesus was. As to Spurgeon pointing “more people to Christ than any mortal on earth,” do you have statistics suggesting Spurgeon was a more effective soul winner than Billy Graham? I find the idea preposterous, but maybe you’re justified in calling me ignorant on this particular point.
You say you talk about Christ. Well, why don’t you talk TOO Him. It sounds to me like your approach to your Savior is all rather academic. Also, why do you refer to him by his title. His name is Jesus, or better yet, Yeshua. If somebody is our friend, don’t we refer to them by their names?
Finally, I’m going to nit pick, if only to demonstrate that if you are as intelligent as you say you are, you’re rather sloppy about it. Spurgeon was no mortal. Neither are you. Think about it.
LikeLike
Kevin said
I responded to your view here
Standard operating procedure of Calvinists: claim any and all opponent of it “don’t understand it” or “you’re misrepresenting it.”
Calvinists do it all the time.
LikeLike
Daisy says, “I find a lot of Calvinism confusing.”
Maybe that’s because Satan is the author of confusion.
LikeLike
I find it ironic that those on this post, who KNOW everything about Calvinism and have deemed it evil and satanic and unbiblical, are now saying that we are Hoity Toity….that’s funny…
The only reason people think Calvinism is hoity toity is because we dive deep into the scriptures to know more of the whole counsel of God. Theology is hoity toity. Can people get puffed up? of course, but that goes for any stream of Christianity. Is it Intellectual? Of course it is, but so is everything else.
We understand that there is a tension between Gods Sovereignty and Mans responsibility and we look to the scriptures to help fuse these two together. Because whether you want to believe it or not, there is a tension. God is absolutely Sovereign and yet he still holds man responsible. We see this everywhere in Scripture.
Missionaries go and preach the whole counsel of God and in their preaching they will espouse the Doctrines Of Grace. They don’t have have to mention Calvin or tulip. It’s irrelevant.
People are not saved based on what they know, they are saved based on the regenerating power of the Holy Spirit. And that comes from a proper presentation of the Gospel. The preacher preaches rightly, and God will use that to regenerate the dead soul.
LikeLike
Gary,
I find Arminianism confusing.
What’s your point?
LikeLike
And again Daisy observes, “Standard operating procedure of Calvinists: claim any and all opponent of it “don’t understand it” or “you’re misrepresenting it.””
From the beginning Calvinist dogma could prevail only if no debate was allowed. It’s just that Calvin himself had the ability to burn books and slow roast his opponents over low-burning, smoky fires. From the feet up. Very slowly and with excruciating pain. Now they are reduced to finding every embarrassing pretext imaginable for shutting down debate.
They are largely afraid to engage substance. They are losing the debate.
LikeLike
What do you mean? I’m on here EXPLAINING it to you guys. Missdaisy just got through saying that it was confusing……so, by her own admission, she doesn’t understand Calvinism.
Debate away…..what question to you have?
LikeLike
Oh no! Kevin refers to “Doctrines Of Grace.” Which, of course, is just a high sounding euphemism of Calvinism. They can’t even fess up to who they are. It all founded in subterfuge.
LikeLike
Kevin says, “Debate away…..what question to you have?”
Glad you asked. Do you agree with concept that God predestines some from birth to suffer eternal conscious torment?
LikeLike
Kevin said,
Finding something confusing and not understanding it are two different things.
I understand Cal just fine.
Your explanation of Cal means squat to me, because if I take YOUR explanation of Cal to Hank the Cal over at XYZ Blog, Hank will say,
‘My gosh, your understanding of Cal is awful! It is misrepresenting Cal!Where ever did you learn about Cal”
And when I reply,
“Kevin the Cal at Spiritual Sounding Blog told me about Cal”
Hank the Cal will say,
“Kevin has Cal all wrong. He knows nothing of Cal.”
I’ve been through this many times over the years with various Cals and have lurked on Cal forums and watched Cals do it to other Non Cals.
Kevin said,
If a person does not need Calvinism to be saved, what is the point in it or in defending it tooth and nail as you do?
Kevin, you are coming across as very pompous, rude, and condescending.
Most Calvinists I have come across online usually are pompous, rude, and condescending, in addition to being overly enamored with intellectualism and with John Calvin.
LikeLike
Daisy,
Yep, although I have been at it for only a short period of time, I also observe that doctrinaire Cals, like Kevin, are pompous, rude, and condescending. It’s just another way of saying they act like every insecure bully I ever had to deal with. And as literally the skinniest, least muscular kid in school, I dealt with a lot of them.
LikeLike
TULIP. Doctrines of Grace….i’ve used both……
Yes, Of course, your gotcha question.
Of course, God predestines those to eternal life and those to eternal damnation. It’s all over Scripture.
Romans 9:21-24 and says, “Does not the potter have power over the clay, from the same lump to make one vessel for honor and another for dishonor? What if God, wanting to show His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath prepared for destruction and that He might make known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy, which He had prepared beforehand for glory, even us whom He called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?”
John Bunyan, author of “The Pilgrim’s Progress,” wrote a whole volume on “Reprobation”. From it we make one brief extract:—”Reprobation is before the person cometh into the world, or hath done good or evil. This is evidenced by Romans 9:11. Here you find twain in their mother’s womb, and both receiving their destiny, not only before they had done good or evil, but before they were in a capacity to do it, they being yet unborn—their destiny, I say, the one unto, the other not unto the blessing of eternal life; the one elect, the other reprobate; the one chosen, the other refused”.
George Whitefield, that stalwart of the eighteenth century, used by God in blessing to so many, wrote: “Without doubt, the doctrine of election and reprobation must stand or fall together. . . . I frankly acknowledge I believe the doctrine of Reprobation, that God intends to give saving grace, through Jesus Christ, only to a certain number; and that the rest of mankind, after the fall of Adam, being justly left of God to continue in sin, will at last suffer that eternal death which is its proper wages.
LikeLike
Gary,
How am I pompous and rude. You call me satanic and all kinds of stuff……
LikeLike
Wow, I’m pompous and rude…..you guys have been name calling for two days.
Calvinism is a way of looking at the scriptures. Just like the trinity. The bible doesn’t say, “Here is the doctrine of the trinity”. Theologians have taken the whole counsel of God and formulated the doctrine of the Trinity.
Cal is the same way.
LikeLike
Re Kevin’s JANUARY 6, 2014 @ 2:00 PM.
And of course people who don’t agree with Calvinism have different ways of understanding or interpreting passages Cals like to offer up as evidence for their position, including the ones Kevin cited.
Kevin said,
I don’t agree that God predestines people to Hell.
I don’t even think God predestines people to Heaven, not in the sense of God decided in eternity past that He would permit Susie Fudamayer into Heaven, and Marty Snufflemocker into Heaven.
And I don’t see those ideas of God predetermining who to send to heaven / hell “all over Scripture.”
The Bible does talk about believers being predestined to do good works after they come to Christ – I mean, the Bible seems to say that the good works are predestined, not the people themselves.
But I don’t see Scriptural support for the idea that God chose folks, on an individual basis, to receive salvation.
On another note, another wacky thing to me about Calvinism:
Calvinists put the cart before the horse and say folks are regenerated first and then are given faith. I see the Bible as presenting it vice versa.
LikeLike
Kevin said,
I have not said bupkiss to you until today. I do not recall posting to either thread last night, when you began posting.
Your behavior / attitude appears to me to have turned pompous, condescending and rude, yes.
As for the other person’s “satanic” comment, was he saying YOU personally are satanic or the theology of Calvinism is satanic? (There is a difference.)
LikeLike
Kevin,
Well, for one thing, I had to put a question to you 4 or 5 times before you would condescend to answer it. And now wonder, when you finally do answer it, you confirm that you believe a doctrine that makes God out to be a psychopathic/sociopathic, narcissistic tyrant, as well as the author of evil. Whether or not you admit it, or even recognize it, your doctrine is simply blasphemous.
As to your Romans 9 proof text, please save me. Paul was talking about the nation of Israel, not individual salvation, and God did subject Israel to the discipline of crushing–over and over as I understand it. Only thing is, he disciplined them for the purpose of bringing them back, and he is bringing them back and will bring them back. All of them. Do you not understand that when a potter crushes one pot back into an unformed lump of clay it is for the purpose of reforming it into something even more beautiful and glorious then the thing he/she destroyed.
As for John Bunyan and George Whitefield, you can save your breath where I’m concerned. Where I’m not particularly interested in your use of Scripture for eisegetical proof texting, I can assure you I put no confidence in Bunyan or Whitefield. Or Edwards, Piper, Grudem or MacArthur for that matter.
LikeLike
Kevin,
You liken Calvinism to the doctrine of the trinity. Well, if Calvinism and the doctrine of the trinity are to be equated, then I have to reject the doctrine of the trinity.
This is something of a digression, but are you aware that Calvin himself was once put on trial for not subscribing to trinitarian doctrine? Really, it’s just too funny.
LikeLike
“God is absolutely Sovereign and yet he still holds man responsible. ”
Definition of Sovereignty?
Now, some folks had a father like this. Very controlling, only concerned about his glory yet held the child responsible when truth is the father did not really give the child a choice. Before the child was born the father decided whether or not He would choose the child for damnation or salvation.
Or a love relationship where the father wants the best for his child and gives him some freedoms and responsibilities (appropriate to age). The father makes huge sacrfices for his child and watches the child make many mistakes with his choices. He sends him help, warnings, etc. A love relationship means freedom/responsibility. Not control. Not glory.
We would consider the first father a monster. A narcissist and perhaps even a sociopathic personality.
At first many young people fall in love with the idea of Calvin’s definition of Sovereignty. A God in control of everything! But if they look real close, it does not describe Jesus Christ WHO is/was God.
How do Calvinists get around the narcissistic father? They appeal to mystery. He is good, loving and kind while damning folks to hell before they are born or Adam even sinned. And yes, the logical conclusion is that because He chose some to be saved and by default, others to be damned.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“As for the other person’s “satanic” comment, was he saying YOU personally are satanic or the theology of Calvinism is satanic? (There is a difference.)”
Thing is, these people are so invested in their doctrine that if you criticize their theology they cannot help but feel you are criticizing them personally. I see it as evidence of idolatry, however unrecognized it may be.
LikeLike
“How do Calvinists get around the narcissistic father?”
Here is one place where I could, in some instances, make allowances. I have come to understand that we tend to take our perceptions of our earthly fathers and project them onto our Heavenly Father. If our earthly fathers were narcissists, we tend to see God as a narcissist. If our earthly fathers were psychopathic/sociopathic, we tend to ascribe to God the characteristics of a psychopath/sociopath. Beyond that, we men tend to become like our earthly fathers, so we end up project our own perceptions of both our fathers and ourselves onto God.
So it’s not surprising that people whose view of God fits the description of some sort of cosmic bully should come across as bullies. Still, since I am not acquainted with Kevin, I am in no position to form an opinion whether any of this applies to him.
John Calvin, having been a psychopathic/sociopathic murder, made God out to be a controlling, unyielding, arbitrary, psychopathic/sociopathic tyrant. But it very possibly all came from Calvin’s having first become like his own earthly father. It would be very interesting to know what John Calvin’s father was like.
LikeLike
Well, Im not sure what really to answer. Romans 9 is not about nations. Just look at the context, but it will never be solved here…..So, tell me what you guys do with these verses? These are all talking about God.
Is 45:7 – I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.
Psalm 11:5 – The Lord examines the righteous, but the wicked, those who love violence,
he hates with a passion.
Proverbs 16:4 – The Lord examines the righteous, but the wicked, those who love violence, he hates with a passion.
I could go on and on.
God is God and he can do whatever he wants…..
LikeLike
It is also dangerous to tell an alcoholic or drug addict that they are not responsible for their condition, that God ordained it! In general, the first step to recovery is to accept responsibility for one’s own actions (and not blame God or anyone else). If you preach predestination and that all that happens is an act of God (his plan) then the alcoholic or drug addict will continue in their addiction. Similarly, btw, with child sex abusers — “if it is merely God’s predetermined plan that I have these desires, then who am I to say no to what God has planted in me?”
LikeLiked by 1 person
An Attorney. a Calv would never say that or believe that. Man is responsible for their actions. That’s what I mean by the tension between Gods Soveriengty and Mans Responsibility.
LikeLike
Kevin
Romans is structured as a legal treatise. In it, Paul sets forth the argument for the other side of the issue, then a weak position on his side, then the strong position on his side. Very effective form of argument. While I was in law school, we dissected Romans as an example of a particularly well constructed legal treatise.
Paul does a similar thing a lot. Sometimes he appears to be making a straw man argument, then follows it with his own. Proof texting from Paul is dangerous, because you may be taking the verse from the (false) straw man argument, rather than the argument Paul intends for you to adopt. The whole argument about head covering is but one example. (Circumcision is not important but a covered head is? Plumb ridiculous!!!!)
LikeLike
“An Attorney. a Calv would never say that or believe that.”
But what do their actions say? Oh, I should clarify – – among abusers.
LikeLike
Kevin,3:46
I know that, but that does not communicate well to the less well educated looking for an excuse for their behavior.
LikeLike
I’ve never heard anyone tell an abuser that God ordained it and that they are not responsbile, so not sure how to answer. A calv doesn’t believe this nor would ever say it.
If an abuser believes this and uses this as an excuse, then they are completely delusional and just trying to deflect their responsibility.
LikeLike
“I make peace, and create evil.” Kevin, if you were arguing with any integrity whatsoever, you would have pointed out that modern translations, including ESV use the word calamity in place of evil. Amplified reads “I create [physical] evil (calamity).” The NET Bible study note indicates this verse had reference to the judgment of nations, with specific reference, in this instance, to the judgment of Babylon through Cyrus.
Psalm 11:5 may or may not be using “hate” in the sense we understand it (am I really to hate my wife, in the ordinary sense, per Luke 14:26?), but even if it is, the verse is perfectly consistent with the notion that the wicked chose to be wicked.
You misquoted Proverbs 16:4, which reads “The Lord has made everything for its purpose, even the wicked for the day of trouble.” (Proverbs 16:4, ESV). God may have made the Wicked, but it doesn’t say he caused the wicked to be wicked.
“God is God and he can do whatever he wants…..” No, He cannot create a rock that is so heavy He cannot lift it, He cannot cause an unstoppable object to pass through an impenetrable wall, and he cannot be both Good and the author of evil.
You could no doubt go on and on, but you would only be piling up blasphemy upon blasphemy.
LikeLike
Gary, thanks for the jab at my integrity. lol. I quoted the King James. Regardless, those versus mean what they mean. Calamity or evil, its the same thing. You can reject them all you want.
No blasphemy here my good fellow. History of the Church is on my side.
LikeLike
No, Kevin. You don’t get to somehow claim omniscience to authoritatively define what the Bible means. And calamity or evil are not the same thing. I choose the translation that does not self-evidently contradict God’s Goodness, Justness or Love. And I wasn’t just jabbing at your integrity. I was indicting it. If you tell me you did not actually know of the alternate translations, I will back off the indictment of your integrity, though in that case I will contest your intellectual competence.
And, only Scripture is competent to define what is and is not blasphemous. Your appeal to “church” history is simply laughable, at least if you are intending to embrace anything that has called itself church since the time of Constantine.
LikeLike
It looks like there’s a Calvinist hashtag trend going on Twitter: #keyCalvinistmoments:
https://twitter.com/search?q=%23keyCalvinistmoments&src=hash&f=realtime
LikeLike
Gary, God has love for his people and his church.
Did God love Pharoah?
Who hardened Pharoah’s heart?
LikeLike
“History of the Church is on my side”
Oh dear. Church history is your Achilles heel. It has been mostly a bloody evil mess. In the Name of God, of course. Believers who dared to defy the “institutionalized Christianity” paid dearly for it.
Scripture says what it says? Do we ignore the audience it was intended for at the time? The way they communicated? The types of metaphorical language they would understand? For example, Psalms is man talking to God in poetry. Do you ever take that into consideration or are you asking God to dash your enemies babies heads against rocks? Are you praying imprecatory prayers, too? You take a proof text and make it literal instead of looking at the cultural context/audience/genre. For example, Pharoah’s heart was already hard. He was not a sweet and cuddly loving Pharoah before as you seem to suggest by your assertion. the Plagues made him more defiant.
It is a misunderstanding of the text to say God created evil as if His plan was for evil so He could Glorify Himself through others suffering. How sick.. He created free will beings who CHOSE to defy Him. And I am speaking of the Angels which WE will judge, btw.
LikeLike
“Gary, God has love for his people and his church”
This is code speak although I have to assume Kevin is parroting what he has heard among the YRR/NEo Cal. They suggest God has a special love for his predestined/elect that he does not have for the ones that were not chosen. They never come out and explain this to its logical conclusoin but you start learning the code speak after a few years if you are paying attention.
Here is more code:
“I’ve never heard anyone tell an abuser that God ordained it and that they are not responsbile, so not sure how to answer. A calv doesn’t believe this nor would ever say it.”
Since they never take their own doctrine to its logical conclusions then they are innocent of what it really teaches. And yes, their view of election/predestination being about individual salvation and being chosen before Adam sinned and you were born can only mean that a Pedophile was foreordained to be a pedophile. Since God is Sovereign and controlling every molecule 24/7 what else could it be? However, this god, while controlling every molecule, did not see fit to protect the child being molested. So in their doctrinal stance God is in total control but man has free will to sin all he wants. They live in cognitive dissonance. And some of them who are thinkers realize eventually that there is no real practical application of Calvinism. All is controlled. they become disillusioned and despairing and many become atheists. A wrong view of God is very dangerous. Most of the young Cals don’t think it through but believe what they are taught by the gurus. they are also caught up in a movement of celebrity gurus.
LikeLike
“God has love for his people and his church.” Exclusively? Really? My Bible says “God so loved the WORLD and that he is not willing that ANY should perish.
“Did God love Pharoah?” Yes, and I dare say He still does (see my previous paragraph). The Bible does not tell us Pharoah’s eternal destiny, but there is this: Lamentations 3:31 For the Lord will not cast off forever, 32 but, though he cause grief, he will have compassion according to the abundance of his steadfast love. Then there is Psalm 22:29: All the prosperous of the earth eat and worship; before him shall bow all who go down to the dust, even the one who could not keep himself alive.
So maybe, just maybe, the two of us will be spending eternity with Pharoah.
As to God hardening Pharoah’s heart, well, if I’m following you, you keep trying to use examples of God working in history to prove individual final destiny. That’s not logical. I think the technical term is non sequitur.
By the way, were you or were you not aware of the alternative translations of Isaiah 45:7?
LikeLike
This is funny. I’ve added some tweets to the #keyCalvinistmoments and evidently according to a Calvinist, I’m not doing it right. My tweets are lame and I’m grumpy.
LikeLike
Julie Anne,
Well shame on you for grumpily crashing into their sheltered, well managed world. Something about threatening their milieu control I suppose.
LikeLike
It’s very revealing following the Twitter debate, Gary. I’m going to put it in a storify so you can read it more easily. The thread is not embedding here nicely. So, he’s decided that my Tweets don’t measure up. This is kind of like the same argument I’ve gotten over doctrine. If my doctrine doesn’t measure up, I’m substandard. And notice he calls me names: grumpy, grumpy pants, said the tweets are so lame to merit a response. Such rudeness. This is similar to the kind of response I get from Miano, CON, etc. They don’t know me, yet engage me on Twitter like I’m their enemy. Such bizarre behavior. Give me 5 minutes to put it in a Storify.
LikeLike
Julie Anne that twitter feed is what it is like living at ground zero. These poor misguided people are eaten up with “doctrine” and a movement which they think is the big truth, And has NOTHING to do with living out their faith as the Kingdom now.
It has become a celebrity movement. Guru followers
LikeLike
Here’s the storify: http://storify.com/DefendTheSheep/keycalvinistmoments-twitter-debate
LikeLike
I have come to the conclusion that communicating with those in that movement is a black hole of circular reasoning and ad hominem. They admire the vitriol of Luther and the arrogance of Calvin. The venom of Edwards and so on. So what do we expect?
LikeLike
Kevin said, “God is God and he can do whatever he wants…..”
Hello? Hold on! Kevin, Do you hear yourself? You just said your God can be evil, can lie, can be unjust, etc.
NO! God is never evil, unjust, unloving, etc. God does not take lightly anyone maligning His character, nature, being. I hope & pray you come to your senses.
LikeLike
Kevin said, “That’s what I mean by the tension between Gods Soveriengty and Mans Responsibility.”
When I hear contradictions & lack of logic explained away with tension & mystery & fusion/fusing together, my tummy starts to growl… it reminds me of cake. Tension & mystery & fusing are buzz words for: having your cake & eating it, too. I also makes me think of a magic show: now you see it, now you don’t – it’s right here, but nowhere at the same time.
LikeLike
Kevin said, “I’ve never heard anyone tell an abuser that God ordained it and that they are not responsbile, so not sure how to answer. A calv doesn’t believe this nor would ever say it.
If an abuser believes this and uses this as an excuse, then they are completely delusional and just trying to deflect their responsibility.”
Really, Kevin? I think YOU kinda did in your “God is God and he can do whatever he wants….” statement a few comments ago. If the God you serve can be evil, unjust & unloving, then isn’t the abuser just following in their maker’s footsteps?
LikeLike
How can you help someone see:
When the “God” they serve can supposedly act in evil, unjust, & unloving ways,
AND
They at the same time call their God good, righteous, holy
CLEARLY
Abusers are merely emulating/mirroring this God, whether the abuser claims this God or not.
Thoughts anyone?
This is my main concern. Many hurting who believe in this god think they have been blessed in the tension & mystery of a good, yet evil god. They are not stupid, they understand what they were taught. They will not remove themselves from being hurt unless they are convinced wrong is wrong. In America, laws protect, unlike in some Mideast & Asian countries. This tells us how strong the grip of the doctrine is in America, that women submit to God-ordained spanking, etc. in a free country.
LikeLike
In a doctrine which says a good, just ,righteous God can do evil, unjust, unloving things because God is God & can do whatever he wants…
it becomes logically impossible to tell anyone they are not good, righteous, just if their actions are evil, unjust, unloving. It is pure hypocrisy to do so. It is unreconcilable.
It then makes sense that love is usually absent from the discussion, mostly cherry-picked Bible verses instead.
LikeLike
A couple of questions: In the days when I was a dyed in the wool Calvinists, vigorously advocating for the TULIP pentagram (what is now euphemistically call doctrines of grace), was I morally complicit in the murder of Miguel Servetus by John Calvin? Was I morally complicit in the all the subsequent murders of fellow believers (tens of thousands of them?) committed in the name of Calvinist doctrine?
I suspect that many who would answer my questions in the negative would be quick to agree that, if I were to become a Roman Catholic, I would become complicit in all the murders that took place at the hands of the Inquisition.
LikeLike
God can do whatever he wants with his creation. He is the creator. Who are we? his creation…..
Romans 9:21.Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use?
So, let me get this straight. Your God can love Pharoah, and then at the same time, turn around and harden pharaohs heart, just to show the people his power and might, and then send plagues to Egypt and kill all of the first born males, and then kill the entire Egyptian army…..and then in the end Still Love as they are rotting in hell…..
Where’s the love in that?
You can’t ignore the fact that God in his wrath has destroyed many people, including women and children……
LikeLike
“You can’t ignore the fact that God in his wrath has destroyed many people, including women and children……”
The children, at least, are with the Lord. Their taking, from eternity’s point of view, was an act of mercy. As to men and women, they were granted free moral agency and are with our Lord, or not, according to their consciences. Rom. 15.
But, so long as we’re proof texting, how about this one: For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive. (1 Corinthians 15:22, ESV). To paraphrase you, the Word says what it says.
LikeLike
Gary, I’m assuming you are a universalist, therefore, anything I say, will not matter to you. Tell me if I’m wrong.
So, no need to exegete the passage because you will not accept it.
This is why I asked your Christian persuasion, so at least i know the playing field.
LikeLike
Kevin,
I do not accept labels. I endeavor to accept Scripture at face value, according to the author’s original intent. I accept the existence of Sheol, Hades, the lake of burning sulfur, and Gehenna (which is not to be confused with Dante’s or Milton’s Hell). I believe Tartarus is also mentioned. Still, what do you do with 1 Cor 15:22 and similar passages? I honestly don’t know. My real point in referring to it though, is that I can also proof text, and my proof texts can put the lie to your proof texts.
It probably is true that nothing you say about the nature of God will persuade me, but it is not because I am a Universalist. It is because you have adopted a view of God which attributes evil to Him and which is, therefore, blasphemous. I will not accept any reading of Scripture which is blasphemous.
LikeLike
If I’m not mistaken, Gary is non-Trinitarian. I can’t remember for sure though.
LikeLike
Kevin,
Many who abuse use scripture to authenticate their actions. What keeps a church in bondage is the fear of being judged by the abuser, their salvation is doubtful if they don’t conform.
.I would compare their action to the Pharisees in Mark 2:16-17 who practiced their own form of Predestination on the sinner and tax collector and then rebuke Christ for ministering to them.
In some respect that could be the Arminian suggesting you could lose your salvation (even if you are saved) which isn’t much different than the Hyper Calvinist practicing Predestination on their own Churches who struggle to embrace reckless Methodologies.
God’s foreknowledge of our destiny is a tool that Hyper Theologies are using to enforce their abusive Methodology using their Pharisee like interpretation of Predestination, to control the abused.
With Calvinism and Arminianism having many dialects in their individual doctrines (they themselves are unable to find a consensus) I would run as far away from these “ism’s” fall down on my face before God and ask for forgiveness for following an “ism” above Christ.
LikeLike
Not trying to label you, just understand where you’re coming from. And obvioulsy, i object to you assertion that my view of God attributes evil to him and is blasphemous.
To the passage you site. I don’t have time to explain it my way, but this does it just the same.
Who are the ones who will be made alive? They are the Christians and only the Christians. First of all, to be “in Christ” is a phrase that describes a saving relationship between the redeemed and the Redeemer: “Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus” (Rom 8:1, NIV) (See also, Rom 6:11; 12:5; 16:7; Co 1:2, etc.); second, those who are made alive at Christ’s coming are the believers. We will be made alive with Christ: “By his power God raised the Lord from the dead, and he will raise us also” (1Co 6:14, NIV); “in a flash, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed” (1Co 15:52, NIV).
The “all” that died in Adam were all that Adam represented: every individual who ever lived. Those “in Christ” are only believers. The “all” therefore can only be the believers, because it says “in Christ all shall be made alive.” If all shall be made alive, then the “all” can only mean the believers because only believers are made alive in Christ. There simply isn’t any biblically consistent alternative interpretation. But you might object and say that the first “all” refers to everybody, obviously. So why, then, doesn’t the second do the same? Because the second “all” can’t refer to everyone. Only the Christians are made alive.
It could be said that everyone, believer and unbeliever alike, will be raised; only the unbelievers are raised to receive damnation. This is true, but it does not fit here in this passage because it is speaking of those who are Christ’s; that is, the believers. The “all” of these verses can only be the elect.
LikeLike
“But you might object and say that the first “all” refers to everybody, obviously. So why, then, doesn’t the second do the same? Because the second “all” can’t refer to everyone. Only the Christians are made alive.”
Even if your conclusion is correct, your argument is circular. You are basically saying that the second “all” doesn’t refer to everybody because the second “all” doesn’t refer to everybody.
LikeLike
Kevin,
I will add to the statement above that we have no more the ability of exercising or having the Father’s “Foreknowledge” then the Pharisees did whe they attempted to Practice “Predestination on the Sinner and Tax Collector.
Your modern day Abuser and Predestination predictors are no different than the Pharisee. Most of the Abusers are claiming to be Calvinist or Arminians as the base of their belief system… .
LikeLike
Kevin,
I’m mostly referring to Calvinist and Arminian abusers practicing Predestination on the abused as way to control them. I didn’t suggest you were evil.
I don’t see too many in Calvinist or Arminian Leaders doing much to stop the Spiritual Abuse.
What I do see depending on the Doctrine they embrace, they are doing more defending rather than rebuking (after all an Elder part of the “Elect” is going to be slow to reprimand someone who is also part of the “Elect” whether they are Calvinist or Arminian)
LikeLike
Kevin,
You say “And obvioulsy, i object to you assertion that my view of God attributes evil to him and is blasphemous.”
Um, your the one who used a proof text that, in KJV, says God creates evil. When the religious leaders accused Jesus of casting out demons by satan, Jesus’ basically responded that blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is unforgivable. I think I’m on good ground in arguing that you are guilty of blasphemy.
LikeLike
@Gary:
Even if your conclusion is correct, your argument is circular. You are basically saying that the second “all” doesn’t refer to everybody because the second “all” doesn’t refer to everybody.
No, the second “all” can’t refer to everybody because we know that not everybody is saved. Therefore, since there is no condemnation for those in Christ Jesus, the second “all” has to only be applied to believers/Christians.
LikeLike
@Gary, I was using that verse to show that God is the one who brings prosperity or Calamity/evil/choas, whatever word you want to use.
Did God not bring plagues on the Egyptians? Did he not kill every first born male, and so forth? What do you call this?
You sound as if God is only in control of good things and not bad things. Is this your view?
LikeLike
@Mark, I just can’t agree. I’ve said this before on the other thread. Pride is the reason these men are abusers. Pride is the root of their sin, not their calv/armi belief. And noone has responded to me about this.
We want to cast blame on this and that, but it’s rather simple. Pride.
LikeLike
Kevin,
Abusers that profess to be Arminians and Calvinist are spreading fear of salvation using their version of Predestination to control the abused..
Why would the abused continue to be under their spell?
And yes Pride may be the catalyst for some but not all.
LikeLike
“No, the second “all” can’t refer to everybody because we know that not everybody is saved. Therefore, since there is no condemnation for those in Christ Jesus, the second “all” has to only be applied to believers/Christians.”
This is code speak for: you have to be a Universalist to believe that interpretation. That is their false dichotomy. Either Calvinism or Universalism. And the reason for this is that in both doctrines, man had NOTHING to do with it. God chooses who is saved.
They will do anything to keep humans from having any volition. That is why it is amusing to debate them. It is not them. It is either God or Satan making them write whatever they write since they have NO volition. :o)
LikeLike
“@Gary, I was using that verse to show that God is the one who brings prosperity or Calamity/evil/choas, whatever word you want to use. ”
Let us take this to its logical conclusion. God forced George Soros to be a zillionaire.
LikeLike
Jesus said “whosoever”. HE did not say, “whoever was predestined”. And all of the verses that suggest predestination can be better translated to refer to the coming into the world of the Christ to create salvation by belief in Jesus. And like any gift (the ultimate meaning of grace), it has to be accepted by the donee. The donor cannot force a gift upon a donee or it is not a gift and is not grace. So grace cannot be irresistible, and the TULIP is wrong.
LikeLike
“Pride is the root of their sin, not their calv/armi belief. And noone has responded to me about this. ”
Well because it still makes no sense. If they are Calvinists (and some are pastors who protect molesters like CJ Mahaney) and they spiritually abuse because of Pride then according to your doctrine, God WANTS them to be that way. They have no volition.
LikeLike
“God is God and he can do whatever he wants…..”
Wrong Kevin! God can do whatever He wills to do that is CONSISTENT with His own attributes and nature. God is love and by nature and therefore He cannot commit evil acts.
LikeLike
If Gary W. were universalist, it is totally irrelevant to the discussion at hand. Gary’s criticisms of Calvinism have been excellent, and completely warranted whether they come from Trinitarian or a universalist. I’m a Trinitarian and believe in orthodox Christology (in complete agreement with the Holy Scriptures, the creed of Nicea 325 A.D., the creed of Constatntinople 381 A.D., and the creed of Chalcedon 451 A.D., except I don’t subscribe to the damnatory clauses) and yet I’m also anti-determinist, anti-Plantonist, anti-Augustinian and anti-Calvinist. There is no contradiction whatsoever in holding both.
Also, it is true that no church father ever taught Calviniststic deterministic predestination until Augustine, that Manichean turned Roman Catholic began teaching it in his later writings. From Petecost to Augustine’s later writings, no one taught predestination in the church, not even the apostle Paul.
LikeLike
@Ryan, what is evil to kill all first born males in Egypt? Was it evil to harden Pharoahs heart? Was it evil to kill thousands of women and children? Was it evil to crucify your own son?
See, you guys don’t want to reconcile these issues. Tell me the love is in all of this?
LikeLike
“We want to cast blame on this and that, but it’s rather simple. Pride.”
Pride held in isolation is still a sin, but at least the damage wroght by that sin is limited to that person. However, when pride is nourished by the false doctrines of deterministic Calvinism and authoritarianism, abuse is inevitable. And on top of that, if the person has psychopathy and/or narcissism and/or is in a position of leadership, the abuse can be quite extensive. Doctrine does matter and doctrine has consequences in the behaviour of its adherents.
LikeLike
@attorney – No, Jesus said, “All that the Father has given me will come to me.” The Father from the beginning of time, gave SOME to Jesus and the SOME WILL come to him.
LikeLike
“If Gary W. were universalist, it is totally irrelevant to the discussion at hand. ”
Ryan, Please understand I was pursuing this from the pov of discussing such things with the YRR/Neo Cals for years. It is relevant from their doctrinal perspective. They only acknowledge 2 positions for salvation. One being God chose who would be saved before the fall but did not choose all. OR, God chose all to be saved. They claim the latter as heresy so that by default makes their position orthodox. See the dichotomy?
That is their false dichotomy. they cannot allow that man has any volition. That was the relevance as far as what Kevin was suggesting.
LikeLike
@lydiasellerofpurple – Does the BIble not say, God raises up Kings and lowers them?
He puts rulers in charge and removes them? That is clearly biblical.
Im not sure what your point it. I think you just want to argue and not listen to what I’m saying. This isn’t even a Calvinist teaching. It;s just biblical.
How do you think Soros became a billionaire? on his own or did God have something to do with it?
So, in your world, you acomplish everyything on your own without anything from God?
Wow.
LikeLike
Lydia, thank-you. I’m totally aware that for Calvinists it is “all or nothing”. They are so blinded by their deterministic paradigm and their authoritarian idols (doctrines and gurus). That reminds me of the time I told a Calvinist that I was a “once-saved-always-saved” Arminian. He asked how this could be so. I told him that I simply bent my knee and recieved the Lord Jesus Christ as my personal Saviour! LOL!
LikeLike
@Ryan, what is evil to kill all first born males in Egypt? Was it evil to harden Pharoahs heart? Was it evil to kill thousands of women and children? Was it evil to crucify your own son?
See, you guys don’t want to reconcile these issues. Tell me the love is in all of this?”
Kevin, Some of us do not read the OT through the same filter you do. And might I gently suggest that you do not understand the LOVE relationship within the Trinity to even suggest that “God in the Flesh” and the FULLY Human Christ going to the Cross was evil. Not all of us subscribe to Penal Substitutionary Atonement. And yes, I am aware most Calvinists think that is heresy. I do not see the Cross as God appeasing His anger by pouring out His wrath upon Himself (as part of the Trinity). I see it as victory over evil for those who are believers, for starters. I see it as a great sacrifice of LOVE for us.
LikeLike
Another problem with Calvinism is the inherent lean toward ESS. (Eternal subordination of the Son). They have great problems with a hierarchy within the Trinity not understanding the metaphorical language of Father/Son. And they often forget there even is a Holy Spirit. I personally think Calvin’s “keys to the kingdom” for leaders effectively eliminates the need for the Holy Spirit in an individual believers life
LikeLike
Re: Kevin at 11:34 am:
Kevin says: I was using that verse [Is. 457, God creates evil, in KJV] to show that God is the one who brings prosperity or Calamity/evil/choas, whatever word you want to use.”
Answer: You keep insisting on including evil as amongst the things God brings. To attribute evil to God is blasphemous. It is a transgression of the third commandment. “You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain, for the Lord will not hold him guiltless who takes his name in vain.” (Exodus 20:7, ESV)
Kevin says: Did God not bring plagues on the Egyptians? Did he not kill every first born male, and so forth? What do you call this?
Answer: I call this the righteous and just discipline of a people who exercised their free will to enslave the Hebrews, to worship idols, and to commit who knows what all other evil. I believe that children who had not yet reached the age of accountability are with our Lord, and are actually better off than if they had been allowed to live into adulthood. Any adults who had clean consciences are with our Lord (again, see Rom. 3). Those whose consciences accused them were or will be judged according to their works, which, since God is just, excludes the possibility of eternal conscious torment. I believe that those whose consciences accused them were under no compulsion, at least initially, to do the things which sullied their consciences. I believe that some, and perhaps all, may have been rescued when Jesus descended into the lower regions of the earth. Eph 4:8-10.
Kevin says: You sound as if God is only in control of good things and not bad things. Is this your view?
Answer: I believe that God is an author of Good. I believe that he has given his creatures the ability to do good, although not unto salvation. I believe that God is never, ever, the author of evil. It would be evil were God to bring people into existence for the purpose of irrevocably predestining them eternal conscious torment, a doctrine which you have admitted you embrace. You may, of course, point to things that God does that we will agree are unpleasant, but that does not prove God is the author of evil. (A thief will find a prison sentence unpleasant, but that does not mean the sentence is either unjust or evil.) God is always just in his actions. It is not just to irresistibly predestine anybody, before conception, to eternal conscious torment. Therefore, God cannot be guilty of any such thing. I dare say that even his unpleasant, though just, judgments are designed to bring repentance and restoration. He can do nothing that contravenes the essence of His nature, which is Love.
LikeLike